Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
GOP’s ‘repeal health care’ plan faces high hurdles « Iowa Independent
GOP’s ‘repeal health care’ plan faces high hurdles
By David Weigel 12/29/09 12:30 PMAs soon as the U.S. Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on Dec. 24, Republicans and conservative activists started making a promise to voters. Give them a victory in the 2010 midterm elections, and they’ll repeal the bill.
“Every Republican in 2010 and 2012 will run on an absolute pledge to repeal this bill,” said Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House who remains a key strategic thinker for the party, on the Dec. 27 episode of “Meet the Press.”
“This has an unusual ability to be repealed, and the public is on that side,” said Max Pappas, the vice president of public policy at FreedomWorks, in a Dec. 28 interview with Avi Zenilman. “The Republicans are going to have to prove that they are worthy of their votes.”
The “repeal” pledge wasn’t anything new for the GOP. In August, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, promised that passage of health care reform would put Republicans back in charge on Capitol Hill in 2011 and put him in a position to repeal the bill. In September, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told conservative activists that a Republican Congress would “pass repealer bill after repealer bill” undoing the work of President Obama and the Democrats, with health care reform first in their sights.
But as Republicans gravitate towards a repeal message for the 2010 elections, they’re running up against the reality that health care reform would be prohibitively hard to roll back. According to conservative health care analysts, legal analysts and political strategists, if President Obama signs health care reform into law, Republicans will have extremely limited opportunities to repeal any part of it.
Read more at The Iowa Independent’s sister site, The Washington Independent.
Related Stories:
What's next?
- Leave a comment
Subscribe to our RSS feed
Follow us on Twitter
CATEGORIES AND TAGS: 2010, 2012, Blog, Campaigns, Economy, conservatives, GOP, Health Care, health care reform, ObamaCare
Monday, December 28, 2009
Al Qaeda Takes Credit for Plot - WSJ.com
Al Qaeda Takes Credit for PlotAl Qaeda Takes Credit for Plot - WSJ.com
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Napolitano Says No Evidence of Wider Terrorist Plot - NYTimes.com
Napolitano Says No Evidence of Wider Terrorist PlotNapolitano Says No Evidence of Wider Terrorist Plot - NYTimes.com
Blogged with the Flock Browser
CN4Iran #CN4Iran on Twitter: Chinese join Iranians in protest using hashtags #iranelection #CN4Iran
Chinese join Iranians in protest using hashtags #iranelection #CN4IranCN4Iran #CN4Iran on Twitter: Chinese join Iranians in protest using hashtags #iranelection #CN4Iran
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Investors.com - Memo To Foes Of Health Reform: Repudiate The Morality Of Need
The message is clear: If you have a need, you are entitled to have it fulfilled at others' expense.The reason we continue to move toward socialized medicine is that everyone — including the opponents of socialized medicine — grants its basic moral premise: that need generates an entitlement.So long as that principle goes unchallenged, government intervention in medicine will continue growing, as each new pressure group asserts its need and lobbies for its entitlement, until finally the government takes responsibility for fulfilling everyone's medical needs by socializing the health care system outright.Some believe you can stop this process midstream: The government will intervene only to help those in dire circumstances while otherwise leaving people responsible for their own health care. But that's an illusion. If need entitles one to the wealth and effort of others, then there is no logical reason why the government should restrict help to some small subset of the "needy," and refuse to help the rest.Investors.com - Memo To Foes Of Health Reform: Repudiate The Morality Of Need
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Americans Against Hate
DAVIE, FLORIDA COUNCILWOMAN ACCUSES JEWS OF “TRYING TO CONVERT EVERYONE”Americans Against Hate
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Sunday, December 27, 2009
American Thinker: The Case for Iran: Fighting for Freedom
I am stunned by those (particularly those on the right) who deride this outpouring of humanity marching for freedom as "more of the same." How can those who supported the Bush doctrine turn away? Some attitudes are entrenched in people and cultures, but I do not believe that people fight bullets with rocks and bricks for more of the same. They can have Shari'a rule now, without the suffering and horror that has come with the demonstrations and risking their lives. They're being slaughtered.Why are those on the right so quick to deride this powerful movement and kick it to the curb? How could anyone dismiss out of hand so courageous a movement? What is there to lose in supporting this effort? What's the downside? If they are right, nothing changes. But if they are wrong, this could be historically cataclysmic. So why help despots and the world's worst oppressors in snuffing out this movement and relegating to an historical footnote? This would undermine every position supporters of freedom and democracy ever took. Why not wait and do a gleeful post mortem? Why help the ghouls and Islamic supremacists?American Thinker: The Case for Iran: Fighting for Freedom
Blogged with the Flock Browser
AFP: White House condemns 'suppression' in Iran
WASHINGTON — The White House on Sunday strongly condemned "violent and unjust suppression" of civilians in Iran, following a fierce government crackdown on opposition protests.The blunt statement contrasted with careful initial responses by the White House following post-election protests in Iran in June and came as the nuclear showdown between Tehran and world powers reached a critical point."We strongly condemn the violent and unjust suppression of civilians in Iran seeking to exercise their universal rights," National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer said in a statement."Hope and history are on the side of those who peacefully seek their universal rights, and so is the United States."Governing through fear and violence is never just, and as President Obama said in Oslo -- it is telling when governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation."The White House commented after Iranian security forces killed several protestors, including opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi's nephew, in a crackdown on anti-government rallies in Tehran, websites said.AFP: White House condemns 'suppression' in Iran
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Hundreds Arrested In Violent Iranian Protests : NPR
Hundreds Arrested In Violent Iranian ProtestsDecember 27, 2009Audio for this story from All Things Considered will be available at approx. 7:00 p.m. ET text sizeAAADecember 27, 2009Thousands of protesters took to the streets of Iran on Sunday in what eyewitnesses called the biggest and bloodiest demonstrations since Iran's contested presidential election this summer. Host Guy Raz reviews the day's events — including the arrest of hundreds of protesters.Hundreds Arrested In Violent Iranian Protests : NPR
Blogged with the Flock Browser
RealClearPolitics - 2009: The Year of Living Fecklessly
2009: The Year of Living FecklesslyBy Charles KrauthammerWASHINGTON -- On Tuesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not just reject President Obama's latest feckless floating nuclear deadline. He spat on it, declaring that Iran "will continue resisting" until the U.S. has gotten rid of its 8,000 nuclear warheads.So ends 2009, the year of "engagement," of the extended hand, of the gratuitous apology -- and of spinning centrifuges, two-stage rockets and a secret enrichment facility that brought Iran materially closer to becoming a nuclear power.Receive news alertsSign UpCharles Krauthammer RealClearPoliticsiran foreign policyWe lost a year. But it was not just any year. It was a year of spectacularly squandered opportunity. In Iran, it was a year of revolution, beginning with a contested election and culminating this week in huge demonstrations mourning the death of the dissident Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri -- and demanding no longer a recount of the stolen election but the overthrow of the clerical dictatorship.RealClearPolitics - 2009: The Year of Living Fecklessly
Blogged with the Flock Browser
The Great Satan Myth | The New Republic
The Great Satan MythEverything you know about U.S. involvement in Iran is wrong.The Great Satan Myth | The New Republic
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Defiant in Tehran - Washington Times
All this goes a long way toward explaining why Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi - previously the "reformist" standard-bearers for Iran's opposition - no longer figure quite so prominently on the Iranian political scene. By now, Iranians understand full well that the goal of both longtime establishment politicians is not to end the current regime, but to preserve it, albeit in a form more palatable to the international community.It is also why Iran's ayatollahs are increasingly worried about the long-term transformative power of Iran's democratic opposition. "The gaps are being deepened because some of our elite are not careful," former parliamentarian Saeed Aboutaleb cautioned recently in an editorial in Iran's Etemaad newspaper. "This problem won't be solved as time passes; rather it will be increased."He may be right. Critical assessments of Iran's "Green" movement have tended to downplay its chances of success. Skeptics have pointed to the lack of viable opposition leaders and the rising power of the regime's ideological army, the Revolutionary Guards, as signs that the current opposition's chances for success are slim to none.But these criticisms miss a crucial point. Revolutions are not born overnight. It took the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the godfather of the Islamic Revolution, years to generate the political and ideological momentum necessary to sweep the shah from power in Tehran. A post-theocratic transition in Iran today could take just as long, or even longer.Likewise, the lack of evident leadership among the Iranian opposition is deeply worrying - but not necessarily fatal. It is useful to recall that, at its start, Poland's powerful "Solidarity" movement lacked clear and cohesive leadership. Figures such as Lech Walesa emerged over time, bringing with them the ideological cohesion and political power that helped Poland ultimately shrug off the communist yoke. At least some recent instances of grass-roots revolution, such as the 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan and "Cedar" uprising in Lebanon the same year, have followed similar evolutionary paths (albeit with very different results).What is needed, in other words, is time - as well as the attention of the outside world. Today, the operative question is whether Iran's nascent democratic forces will be able to count on either. Since this summer, the regime in Tehran has become increasingly ruthless and repressive at home, a clear sign that Iran's ayatollahs no longer feel so comfortably in control. The talks now under way over Iran's nuclear program, however, have worked in favor of the status quo, signaling to Iran's leaders - and everyone else - that the international community is willing to negotiate with the tyranny it knows at the expense of more pluralistic alternatives. So Iran's opposition bides its time, hoping that it can capture the attention of the outside world before it runs out of steam.More than anything else, this means Washington. When the Obama administration launched its bid for "engagement" with the regime in Tehran this fall, it traded the promise of an Iran in ferment for the elusive prospect of a tactical accommodation with one of the world's radical regimes. In doing so, the White House consciously downplayed American support for Iran's opposition, putting itself on the wrong side of the power struggle now playing out on Iran's streets.Now, as that negotiating track draws to a close, Iran's opposition leaders once again have reason to hope that President Obama will understand at long last that, when it comes to supporting those seeking freedom, the leader of the Free World should never remain silent. Here's wishing that they will not have to wait long.Defiant in Tehran - Washington Times
Blogged with the Flock Browser
EDITORIAL: Iran's perfect storm - Washington Times
EDITORIAL: Iran's perfect stormEDITORIAL: Iran's perfect storm - Washington Times
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Friday, December 25, 2009
What we should do next to fight Obamacare
So now that the Senate has passed the bill where do we go from here.
What's more,where does the bill,or rather,the bills,go from here.
Some of the people who are reading this may be newcomers to all of this
,& even some of those who have been following this may not know how the
the process works,so I want to fill them in.
Now that The House & The Senate have each passed their respective bills,the 2 bills must be reconciled. This is normally done through a House-Senate Conference,but as Fox News explains:
“Reid had wanted to assign conferees to meet with House negotiators on a compromise between the two versions of the bill. Democrats had hoped to begin negotiations as early as next week, though the House doesn't return officially until Jan. 12 and the Senate until Jan. 19.
But Reid's effort was dashed by Republicans who put the leader on notice that they would object to the appointment of conferees, and that would have delayed the Senate's recess, something no one wanted on Christmas eve.
House and Senate Democrats do have parliamentary avenues to get around the objection. The House and Senate can play ping-pong with the bill, where the Senate pings the bill over to the House and it makes changes and then the House pongs it back over to the Senate for another round.
This congressional table tennis continues until both bodies have adopted the same piece of legislation. That, however, could take longer than the administration had hoped.”
Republicans Look for Mechanisms to Halt Health Insurance bill 12-24-09
This is part of a plan conceived by Dan Perrin, & which he presented in detail in his article:
The Extraordinary Measures Needed to Kill the Bill — Updated with Vote Numbers
And followed up with:
The Best Christmas Present Ever: Senator DeMint Objects to the Appointment of the Conferees
In essence he argues for using procedural maneuvers,(already being done,see above),to make it as difficult as possible to reconcile the bills,while working w/ Leftists in the House to insert “poison pill” provisions into the House bill.
As He explains it:
“So, first, conservatives force two votes in the House, by preventing the appointment of the conferees,and therefore, preventing a House-Senate Conference.
Second, the left will focus on three separate issues to kill the bill in the House. The object of these issues is not to support these policies per say, but to add items to the House bill that will be so objectionable that when the bill goes back over to the Senate, that the Dems lose one or more of their 60 votes.”
The three issues are:
The Public Option
Killing the Nebraska & Vermont sweetheart deals,(& I would add the Louisiana Purchase that bought off Landrieu).
And Abortion:(Both Pro-Choice & Pro-Life Congressmen reject the Ben Nelson compromise reached in the Senate bill)
Perrin again:
“Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion Forces: In short, have at it. Given the Stupak amendment majority in the House, the pro-lifers must stick Stupak back on the bill, so that when it is sent back to the Senate, the pro-abortion majority can pull Stupak back off. When the bill goes back to the Senate, the pro-abortion forces can remove Stupak, just as they did a couple of weeks ago. Once Stupak is pulled again from the Senate it must go back to the House to be amended, or die there.”
The idea of a temporary alliance of convenience with the Left has also been put forward by Robert Trancinski in “ Letter to a Sincere Leftist: Let's Smash the State Power of the Corporations “
What we must now do if this bill is to stopped:
1.If you know any Liberals urge them to pursue this strategy.
2.Do everything you can to discredit the thesis, put forward by the Obama Administration that failure to pass this bill will do more harm to the Democratic Party then passing it will.This is the argument that they have been using to sell the bill in spite of the obvious,overwhelming public opposition to the bill. Further:"opposition to the bill will subside once people get to know what's in it”.Indeed Sen.Chuck Schumer cheerfully boasted that: “Mitch Mcconnell said on the floor that we're going to go home & hear our constituents rail against this bill, I don't believe that,I believe that the negativity that leader Mcconnell & others have continually displayed on the floor has peaked...”1.
3..We must show them,by direct,but peaceful confrontation,by continually calling faxing & e-mailing them,that they are wrong. While no individual call will make a difference,showing them that we will not go away,will belie their spin. Equally important,is the fact that any slackening off will be taken as vindication of their fantasies.Indeed we must turn UP the pressure.We must find out who their largest campaign donors are,& stage boycotts of them. Protest at every,fundraiser,townhall,& speech that they give. Protest at every public relations event .Contact your local teaparty group,Republican Party meeting,even the anti-bill Liberals. But you argue,the Liberals just want to put the Public Option back in?True,they hope to get the Public Option put back in,but even if they cannot,they believe that no bill is better than this bill.(They believe the bill is a giveaway to the Insurance Companies,since it requires people to buy private insurance).
4.Finally & most importantly,keep spreading the ideas of Freedom,Individual Rights,& the value of Free-Market Economics,to your friends,neighbors,co-workers,to everyone,everywhere,where appropriate,so as to make a principled opposition to Socialized Medicine.
What we should do next to fight obamacare by Robert Reed Daly is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at theneointellectual.typepad.com.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://theneointellectual.typepad.com/blog/.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Dr Peikoffs Health Care Is Not A Right
Notice: The following article is Copyright 1993 by Leonard Peikoff and is being distributed by permission. This article may be distributed electronically provided that it not be altered in any manner whatsoever. All notices including this notice must remain affixed to this article.
Health Care Is Not A Right
by Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D. Delivered at a Town Hall Meeting on the Clinton Health Plan. Red Lion Hotel, Costa Mesa CA. December 11, 1993
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen:
Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea -- which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical -- it does not work -- but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. So I'm going to leave it to other speakers to concentrate on the practical flaws in the Clinton health plan. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan -- not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it -- to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.
What is morality in this context? The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man's unalienable, individual rights. The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with -- and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.
Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights -- and only these.
Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want -- not to be given it without effort by somebody else.
The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.
To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit -- to a certain type of action on your part and its result -- not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become rightless.
That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history -- and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence.
Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents -- rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.
You are entitled to something, the politicians say, simply because it exists and you want or need it -- period. You are entitled to be given it by the government. Where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to private citizens -- to their individual rights -- to their real rights -- in order to carry out the promise of showering free services on the people?
The answers are obvious. The newfangled rights wipe out real rights -- and turn the people who actually create the goods and services involved into servants of the state. The Russians tried this exact system for many decades. Unfortunately, we have not learned from their experience. Yet the meaning of socialism (this is the right name for Clinton's medical plan) is clearly evident in any field at all -- you don't need to think of health care as a special case; it is just as apparent if the government were to proclaim a universal right to food, or to a vacation, or to a haircut. I mean: a right in the new sense: not that you are free to earn these things by your own effort and trade, but that you have a moral claim to be given these things free of charge, with no action on your part, simply as handouts from a benevolent government.
How would these alleged new rights be fulfilled? Take the simplest case: you are born with a moral right to hair care, let us say, provided by a loving government free of charge to all who want or need it. What would happen under such a moral theory?
Haircuts are free, like the air we breathe, so some people show up every day for an expensive new styling, the government pays out more and more, barbers revel in their huge new incomes, and the profession starts to grow ravenously, bald men start to come in droves for free hair implantations, a school of fancy, specialized eyebrow pluckers develops -- it's all free, the government pays. The dishonest barbers are having a field day, of course -- but so are the honest ones; they are working and spending like mad, trying to give every customer his heart's desire, which is a millionaire's worth of special hair care and services -- the government starts to scream, the budget is out of control. Suddenly directives erupt: we must limit the number of barbers, we must limit the time spent on haircuts, we must limit the permissible type of hair styles; bureaucrats begin to split hairs about how many hairs a barber should be allowed to split. A new computerized office of records filled with inspectors and red tape shoots up; some barbers, it seems, are still getting too rich, they must be getting more than their fair share of the national hair, so barbers have to start applying for Certificates of Need in order to buy razors, while peer review boards are established to assess every stylist's work, both the dishonest and the overly honest alike, to make sure that no one is too bad or too good or too busy or too unbusy. Etc. In the end, there are lines of wretched customers waiting for their chance to be routinely scalped by bored, hog-tied haircutters some of whom remember dreamily the old days when somehow everything was so much better.
Do you think the situation would be improved by having hair-care cooperatives organized by the government? -- having them engage in managed competition, managed by the government, in order to buy haircut insurance from companies controlled by the government?
If this is what would happen under government-managed hair care, what else can possibly happen -- it is already starting to happen -- under the idea of health care as a right? Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a right to such a thing?
Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them.
You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs.
Some of you may ask here: But can people afford health care on their own? Even leaving aside the present government-inflated medical prices, the answer is: Certainly people can afford it. Where do you think the money is coming from right now to pay for it all -- where does the government get its fabled unlimited money? Government is not a productive organization; it has no source of wealth other than confiscation of the citizens' wealth, through taxation, deficit financing or the like.
But, you may say, isn't it the "rich" who are really paying the costs of medical care now -- the rich, not the broad bulk of the people? As has been proved time and again, there are not enough rich anywhere to make a dent in the government's costs; it is the vast middle class in the U.S. that is the only source of the kind of money that national programs like government health care require. A simple example of this is the fact that the Clinton Administration's new program rests squarely on the backs not of Big Business, but of small businessmen who are struggling in today's economy merely to stay alive and in existence. Under any socialized program, it is the "little people" who do most of the paying for it -- under the senseless pretext that "the people" can't afford such and such, so the government must take over. If the people of a country truly couldn't afford a certain service -- as e.g. in Somalia -- neither, for that very reason, could any government in that country afford it, either.
Some people can't afford medical care in the U.S. But they are necessarily a small minority in a free or even semi-free country. If they were the majority, the country would be an utter bankrupt and could not even think of a national medical program. As to this small minority, in a free country they have to rely solely on private, voluntary charity. Yes, charity, the kindness of the doctors or of the better off -- charity, not right, i.e. not their right to the lives or work of others. And such charity, I may say, was always forthcoming in the past in America. The advocates of Medicaid and Medicare under LBJ did not claim that the poor or old in the '60's got bad care; they claimed that it was an affront for anyone to have to depend on charity.
But the fact is: You don't abolish charity by calling it something else. If a person is getting health care for nothing, simply because he is breathing, he is still getting charity, whether or not President Clinton calls it a "right." To call it a Right when the recipient did not earn it is merely to compound the evil. It is charity still -- though now extorted by criminal tactics of force, while hiding under a dishonest name.
As with any good or service that is provided by some specific group of men, if you try to make its possession by all a right, you thereby enslave the providers of the service, wreck the service, and end up depriving the very consumers you are supposed to be helping. To call "medical care" a right will merely enslave the doctors and thus destroy the quality of medical care in this country, as socialized medicine has done around the world, wherever it has been tried, including Canada (I was born in Canada and I know a bit about that system first hand).
I would like to clarify the point about socialized medicine enslaving the doctors. Let me quote here from an article I wrote a few years ago: "Medicine: The Death of a Profession." [The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, NAL Books, c 1988 by the Estate of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff.]
"In medicine, above all, the mind must be left free. Medical treatment involves countless variables and options that must be taken into account, weighed, and summed up by the doctor's mind and subconscious. Your life depends on the private, inner essence of the doctor's function: it depends on the input that enters his brain, and on the processing such input receives from him. What is being thrust now into the equation? It is not only objective medical facts any longer. Today, in one form or another, the following also has to enter that brain: 'The DRG administrator [in effect, the hospital or HMO man trying to control costs] will raise hell if I operate, but the malpractice attorney will have a field day if I don't -- and my rival down the street, who heads the local PRO [Peer Review Organization], favors a CAT scan in these cases, I can't afford to antagonize him, but the CON boys disagree and they won't authorize a CAT scanner for our hospital -- and besides the FDA prohibits the drug I should be prescribing, even though it is widely used in Europe, and the IRS might not allow the patient a tax deduction for it, anyhow, and I can't get a specialist's advice because the latest Medicare rules prohibit a consultation with this diagnosis, and maybe I shouldn't even take this patient, he's so sick -- after all, some doctors are manipulating their slate of patients, they accept only the healthiest ones, so their average costs are coming in lower than mine, and it looks bad for my staff privileges.' Would you like your case to be treated this way -- by a doctor who takes into account your objective medical needs and the contradictory, unintelligible demands of some ninety different state and Federal government agencies? If you were a doctor could you comply with all of it? Could you plan or work around or deal with the unknowable? But how could you not? Those agencies are real and they are rapidly gaining total power over you and your mind and your patients. In this kind of nightmare world, if and when it takes hold fully, thought is helpless; no one can decide by rational means what to do. A doctor either obeys the loudest authority -- or he tries to sneak by unnoticed, bootlegging some good health care occasionally or, as so many are doing now, he simply gives up and quits the field."
The Clinton plan will finish off quality medicine in this country -- because it will finish off the medical profession. It will deliver doctors bound hands and feet to the mercies of the bureaucracy.
The only hope -- for the doctors, for their patients, for all of us -- is for the doctors to assert a moral principle. I mean: to assert their own personal individual rights -- their real rights in this issue -- their right to their lives, their liberty, their property, their pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence applies to the medical profession too. We must reject the idea that doctors are slaves destined to serve others at the behest of the state.
I'd like to conclude with a sentence from Ayn Rand. Doctors, she wrote, are not servants of their patients. They are "traders, like everyone else in a free society, and they should bear that title proudly, considering the crucial importance of the services they offer."
The battle against the Clinton plan, in my opinion, depends on the doctors speaking out against the plan -- but not only on practical grounds -- rather, first of all, on moral grounds. The doctors must defend themselves and their own interests as a matter of solemn justice, upholding a moral principle, the first moral principle: self- preservation. If they can do it, all of us will still have a chance. I hope it is not already too late. Thank you.
Copies of this address in pamphlet form are available for $15 per 100 copies or $125 per 1000 copies from: Americans for Free Choice in Medicine, 1525 Superior Ave., Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92663, Phone (714) 645-2622, Fax (714) 645-4624. Copies of Dr. Peikoff's lecture, "Medicine: The Death of a Profession" may be purchased in pamphlet form for $2.50 each (catalog number LP04E) from: Second Renaissance Books, 110 Copperwood Way, P.O. Box 4625, Oceanside, CA 92052, Phone (800) 729-6149. (Quantity discounts are also available: $1.85 each for 10-99 copies, catalog number LP66E, $1.50 each for 100-499 copies, LP77E; $1.25 each for 500-999 copies, LP88E; and $1 each for 1000 copies and over, LP99E.)
Also available from Second Renaissance is the pamphlet "The Forgotten Man of Socialized Medicine: The Doctor," containing articles by Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. (Catalog number AR10E, $2.95)
Additional information on why national health care programs don't work is available from: Objectivist Health Care Professionals Network, P.O. Box 4315, South Colby, WA 98384-0315, Phone (206) 876-5868, FAX (206) 876-2902. This organization publishes a newsletter on health care and distributes a copy of it in their health care information package.
Almost ten years ago, Leonard Peikoff predicted that our medical system would be dismantled. Looking at the young people in the crowd, he remarked:
"If you are looking for a crusade, there is none that is more idealistic or more practical. This one is devoted to protecting some of the greatest [men] in the history of this country. And it is also, literally, a matter of life and death---YOUR LIFE, and that of anyone you love. Don't let it go without a fight!"
From "Medicine: The Death of a Profession" by Leonard Peikoff from concluding remarks from 1985 presentation with Dr. Michael Peikoff.
Dr. Leonard Peikoff, author of The Ominous Parallels and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand was a long-time (30 year) associate of the novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand and upon her death in 1982 was designated as her intellectual and legal heir. He received his Ph.D. from New York University in 1984 and taught at Hunter College. Over the years, he has served in the capacity of professor of philosophy, lecturer and chairman of the board of the Ayn Rand Institute and is currently one of the principal lecturers and instructors of the Objectivist Graduate Center. He has lectured extensively at such prestigious speakers' forums as Ford Hall Forum in Boston on several topics including philosophy and current events. Additionally, outside of academia, he has taught courses on philosophy, rhetoric, logic and Objectivism audio version of which are available from Second Renaissance Books listed above.
http://www.bdt.com/pages/008000
Health Care Is Not A Right
by Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D. Delivered at a Town Hall Meeting on the Clinton Health Plan. Red Lion Hotel, Costa Mesa CA. December 11, 1993
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen:
Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea -- which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical -- it does not work -- but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. So I'm going to leave it to other speakers to concentrate on the practical flaws in the Clinton health plan. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan -- not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it -- to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.
What is morality in this context? The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man's unalienable, individual rights. The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with -- and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.
Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights -- and only these.
Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want -- not to be given it without effort by somebody else.
The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.
To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit -- to a certain type of action on your part and its result -- not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become rightless.
That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history -- and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence.
Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents -- rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.
You are entitled to something, the politicians say, simply because it exists and you want or need it -- period. You are entitled to be given it by the government. Where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to private citizens -- to their individual rights -- to their real rights -- in order to carry out the promise of showering free services on the people?
The answers are obvious. The newfangled rights wipe out real rights -- and turn the people who actually create the goods and services involved into servants of the state. The Russians tried this exact system for many decades. Unfortunately, we have not learned from their experience. Yet the meaning of socialism (this is the right name for Clinton's medical plan) is clearly evident in any field at all -- you don't need to think of health care as a special case; it is just as apparent if the government were to proclaim a universal right to food, or to a vacation, or to a haircut. I mean: a right in the new sense: not that you are free to earn these things by your own effort and trade, but that you have a moral claim to be given these things free of charge, with no action on your part, simply as handouts from a benevolent government.
How would these alleged new rights be fulfilled? Take the simplest case: you are born with a moral right to hair care, let us say, provided by a loving government free of charge to all who want or need it. What would happen under such a moral theory?
Haircuts are free, like the air we breathe, so some people show up every day for an expensive new styling, the government pays out more and more, barbers revel in their huge new incomes, and the profession starts to grow ravenously, bald men start to come in droves for free hair implantations, a school of fancy, specialized eyebrow pluckers develops -- it's all free, the government pays. The dishonest barbers are having a field day, of course -- but so are the honest ones; they are working and spending like mad, trying to give every customer his heart's desire, which is a millionaire's worth of special hair care and services -- the government starts to scream, the budget is out of control. Suddenly directives erupt: we must limit the number of barbers, we must limit the time spent on haircuts, we must limit the permissible type of hair styles; bureaucrats begin to split hairs about how many hairs a barber should be allowed to split. A new computerized office of records filled with inspectors and red tape shoots up; some barbers, it seems, are still getting too rich, they must be getting more than their fair share of the national hair, so barbers have to start applying for Certificates of Need in order to buy razors, while peer review boards are established to assess every stylist's work, both the dishonest and the overly honest alike, to make sure that no one is too bad or too good or too busy or too unbusy. Etc. In the end, there are lines of wretched customers waiting for their chance to be routinely scalped by bored, hog-tied haircutters some of whom remember dreamily the old days when somehow everything was so much better.
Do you think the situation would be improved by having hair-care cooperatives organized by the government? -- having them engage in managed competition, managed by the government, in order to buy haircut insurance from companies controlled by the government?
If this is what would happen under government-managed hair care, what else can possibly happen -- it is already starting to happen -- under the idea of health care as a right? Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a right to such a thing?
Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them.
You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs.
Some of you may ask here: But can people afford health care on their own? Even leaving aside the present government-inflated medical prices, the answer is: Certainly people can afford it. Where do you think the money is coming from right now to pay for it all -- where does the government get its fabled unlimited money? Government is not a productive organization; it has no source of wealth other than confiscation of the citizens' wealth, through taxation, deficit financing or the like.
But, you may say, isn't it the "rich" who are really paying the costs of medical care now -- the rich, not the broad bulk of the people? As has been proved time and again, there are not enough rich anywhere to make a dent in the government's costs; it is the vast middle class in the U.S. that is the only source of the kind of money that national programs like government health care require. A simple example of this is the fact that the Clinton Administration's new program rests squarely on the backs not of Big Business, but of small businessmen who are struggling in today's economy merely to stay alive and in existence. Under any socialized program, it is the "little people" who do most of the paying for it -- under the senseless pretext that "the people" can't afford such and such, so the government must take over. If the people of a country truly couldn't afford a certain service -- as e.g. in Somalia -- neither, for that very reason, could any government in that country afford it, either.
Some people can't afford medical care in the U.S. But they are necessarily a small minority in a free or even semi-free country. If they were the majority, the country would be an utter bankrupt and could not even think of a national medical program. As to this small minority, in a free country they have to rely solely on private, voluntary charity. Yes, charity, the kindness of the doctors or of the better off -- charity, not right, i.e. not their right to the lives or work of others. And such charity, I may say, was always forthcoming in the past in America. The advocates of Medicaid and Medicare under LBJ did not claim that the poor or old in the '60's got bad care; they claimed that it was an affront for anyone to have to depend on charity.
But the fact is: You don't abolish charity by calling it something else. If a person is getting health care for nothing, simply because he is breathing, he is still getting charity, whether or not President Clinton calls it a "right." To call it a Right when the recipient did not earn it is merely to compound the evil. It is charity still -- though now extorted by criminal tactics of force, while hiding under a dishonest name.
As with any good or service that is provided by some specific group of men, if you try to make its possession by all a right, you thereby enslave the providers of the service, wreck the service, and end up depriving the very consumers you are supposed to be helping. To call "medical care" a right will merely enslave the doctors and thus destroy the quality of medical care in this country, as socialized medicine has done around the world, wherever it has been tried, including Canada (I was born in Canada and I know a bit about that system first hand).
I would like to clarify the point about socialized medicine enslaving the doctors. Let me quote here from an article I wrote a few years ago: "Medicine: The Death of a Profession." [The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, NAL Books, c 1988 by the Estate of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff.]
"In medicine, above all, the mind must be left free. Medical treatment involves countless variables and options that must be taken into account, weighed, and summed up by the doctor's mind and subconscious. Your life depends on the private, inner essence of the doctor's function: it depends on the input that enters his brain, and on the processing such input receives from him. What is being thrust now into the equation? It is not only objective medical facts any longer. Today, in one form or another, the following also has to enter that brain: 'The DRG administrator [in effect, the hospital or HMO man trying to control costs] will raise hell if I operate, but the malpractice attorney will have a field day if I don't -- and my rival down the street, who heads the local PRO [Peer Review Organization], favors a CAT scan in these cases, I can't afford to antagonize him, but the CON boys disagree and they won't authorize a CAT scanner for our hospital -- and besides the FDA prohibits the drug I should be prescribing, even though it is widely used in Europe, and the IRS might not allow the patient a tax deduction for it, anyhow, and I can't get a specialist's advice because the latest Medicare rules prohibit a consultation with this diagnosis, and maybe I shouldn't even take this patient, he's so sick -- after all, some doctors are manipulating their slate of patients, they accept only the healthiest ones, so their average costs are coming in lower than mine, and it looks bad for my staff privileges.' Would you like your case to be treated this way -- by a doctor who takes into account your objective medical needs and the contradictory, unintelligible demands of some ninety different state and Federal government agencies? If you were a doctor could you comply with all of it? Could you plan or work around or deal with the unknowable? But how could you not? Those agencies are real and they are rapidly gaining total power over you and your mind and your patients. In this kind of nightmare world, if and when it takes hold fully, thought is helpless; no one can decide by rational means what to do. A doctor either obeys the loudest authority -- or he tries to sneak by unnoticed, bootlegging some good health care occasionally or, as so many are doing now, he simply gives up and quits the field."
The Clinton plan will finish off quality medicine in this country -- because it will finish off the medical profession. It will deliver doctors bound hands and feet to the mercies of the bureaucracy.
The only hope -- for the doctors, for their patients, for all of us -- is for the doctors to assert a moral principle. I mean: to assert their own personal individual rights -- their real rights in this issue -- their right to their lives, their liberty, their property, their pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence applies to the medical profession too. We must reject the idea that doctors are slaves destined to serve others at the behest of the state.
I'd like to conclude with a sentence from Ayn Rand. Doctors, she wrote, are not servants of their patients. They are "traders, like everyone else in a free society, and they should bear that title proudly, considering the crucial importance of the services they offer."
The battle against the Clinton plan, in my opinion, depends on the doctors speaking out against the plan -- but not only on practical grounds -- rather, first of all, on moral grounds. The doctors must defend themselves and their own interests as a matter of solemn justice, upholding a moral principle, the first moral principle: self- preservation. If they can do it, all of us will still have a chance. I hope it is not already too late. Thank you.
Copies of this address in pamphlet form are available for $15 per 100 copies or $125 per 1000 copies from: Americans for Free Choice in Medicine, 1525 Superior Ave., Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92663, Phone (714) 645-2622, Fax (714) 645-4624. Copies of Dr. Peikoff's lecture, "Medicine: The Death of a Profession" may be purchased in pamphlet form for $2.50 each (catalog number LP04E) from: Second Renaissance Books, 110 Copperwood Way, P.O. Box 4625, Oceanside, CA 92052, Phone (800) 729-6149. (Quantity discounts are also available: $1.85 each for 10-99 copies, catalog number LP66E, $1.50 each for 100-499 copies, LP77E; $1.25 each for 500-999 copies, LP88E; and $1 each for 1000 copies and over, LP99E.)
Also available from Second Renaissance is the pamphlet "The Forgotten Man of Socialized Medicine: The Doctor," containing articles by Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. (Catalog number AR10E, $2.95)
Additional information on why national health care programs don't work is available from: Objectivist Health Care Professionals Network, P.O. Box 4315, South Colby, WA 98384-0315, Phone (206) 876-5868, FAX (206) 876-2902. This organization publishes a newsletter on health care and distributes a copy of it in their health care information package.
Almost ten years ago, Leonard Peikoff predicted that our medical system would be dismantled. Looking at the young people in the crowd, he remarked:
"If you are looking for a crusade, there is none that is more idealistic or more practical. This one is devoted to protecting some of the greatest [men] in the history of this country. And it is also, literally, a matter of life and death---YOUR LIFE, and that of anyone you love. Don't let it go without a fight!"
From "Medicine: The Death of a Profession" by Leonard Peikoff from concluding remarks from 1985 presentation with Dr. Michael Peikoff.
Dr. Leonard Peikoff, author of The Ominous Parallels and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand was a long-time (30 year) associate of the novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand and upon her death in 1982 was designated as her intellectual and legal heir. He received his Ph.D. from New York University in 1984 and taught at Hunter College. Over the years, he has served in the capacity of professor of philosophy, lecturer and chairman of the board of the Ayn Rand Institute and is currently one of the principal lecturers and instructors of the Objectivist Graduate Center. He has lectured extensively at such prestigious speakers' forums as Ford Hall Forum in Boston on several topics including philosophy and current events. Additionally, outside of academia, he has taught courses on philosophy, rhetoric, logic and Objectivism audio version of which are available from Second Renaissance Books listed above.
http://www.bdt.com/pages/008000
Sunday, November 8, 2009
My response to the despair over the passage of Obamacare by the House,Stop whining & act like Men,(& Women)
Reading Facebook's comment threads I have become very annoyed by this whining,sniveling drivel,"We're doomed","It's the end of America",as if our Nation could be destroyed by these flys.
To paraphrase Churchill,this is not the beginning of the end, it is not even the end of the beginning.
The bill now goes to the Senate, where we must fight it w/ all our strength.
If it passes the Senate it must then be reconciled w/the House & passed by both chambers.
At every step along the way we have the opportunity to stop it,or slow it down.All the while we should offer those who voted for the bill the opportunity to "see the light",& change their vote.
What if the bill is passed,you ask?Then we go to work on the 2010 and 2012 elections.
We identify their weaknesses.We target businesses large & small who give money to their campaigns for boycotts.
We work to weaken or defeat them at every stage from the primary on.
We identify their strengths & weaken them.We take their weaknesses & exploit them,(where appropriate through stings of the kind that exposed Acorn).
If we cannot defeat someone in 2010 then we drag their numbers down as much as possible for the next election.
Do not waste your time on Pelosi,or other fanatics in far left districts.
Our goal is not revenge.Our goal is to defeat the bill.And if that fails,repeal it.
Why do you despair?Because the bill has passed the House?If you despair because this bill is a violation of rights & you fear it's passage,then the solution,the only solution, is to work for its defeat,& if it passes,to repeal it.
To despair,to give up & to give in,to say all is lost,is hypocrisy.
If you genuinely believe something is evil, then a defeat is not a reason to crawl away and despair.To the degree that something is wrong,that is all the more reason for not surrendering to it.
Victory can never be guaranteed.
The only thing that can be guaranteed is that surrender leads to defeat.
If you believe that the bill is evil,then you must fight it.Not because victory is certain,but because surrendering to evil,is itself evil.
(On a lighter note see this video above, & man up,(or woman up,(or Transgender up for that matter) as the case may be).
My response to the despair over the passage of Obamacare by the House,Stop whining & act like Men,(& Women) by Robert Reed Daly is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://theneointellectual.blogspot.com/.
To paraphrase Churchill,this is not the beginning of the end, it is not even the end of the beginning.
The bill now goes to the Senate, where we must fight it w/ all our strength.
If it passes the Senate it must then be reconciled w/the House & passed by both chambers.
At every step along the way we have the opportunity to stop it,or slow it down.All the while we should offer those who voted for the bill the opportunity to "see the light",& change their vote.
What if the bill is passed,you ask?Then we go to work on the 2010 and 2012 elections.
We identify their weaknesses.We target businesses large & small who give money to their campaigns for boycotts.
We work to weaken or defeat them at every stage from the primary on.
We identify their strengths & weaken them.We take their weaknesses & exploit them,(where appropriate through stings of the kind that exposed Acorn).
If we cannot defeat someone in 2010 then we drag their numbers down as much as possible for the next election.
Do not waste your time on Pelosi,or other fanatics in far left districts.
Our goal is not revenge.Our goal is to defeat the bill.And if that fails,repeal it.
Why do you despair?Because the bill has passed the House?If you despair because this bill is a violation of rights & you fear it's passage,then the solution,the only solution, is to work for its defeat,& if it passes,to repeal it.
To despair,to give up & to give in,to say all is lost,is hypocrisy.
If you genuinely believe something is evil, then a defeat is not a reason to crawl away and despair.To the degree that something is wrong,that is all the more reason for not surrendering to it.
Victory can never be guaranteed.
The only thing that can be guaranteed is that surrender leads to defeat.
If you believe that the bill is evil,then you must fight it.Not because victory is certain,but because surrendering to evil,is itself evil.
(On a lighter note see this video above, & man up,(or woman up,(or Transgender up for that matter) as the case may be).
My response to the despair over the passage of Obamacare by the House,Stop whining & act like Men,(& Women) by Robert Reed Daly is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://theneointellectual.blogspot.com/.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Friday, August 7, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
On Obama's (& the media's) Lincoln delusions
On Obama's (& the media's) Lincoln delusions
Obama seems to be under a delusion ,(shared by many in the news media),
that by mimicking Lincoln's cross-country train trip,talking about a
team of rivals,invoking Lincoln several times in his speeches (like Bush
),& simply being from Illinois,will somehow,magically make him into a
21st cent Lincoln.It will not .Lincoln was not one of America's greatest
presidents because of any of those things, but because he did,you know
stuff ,stuff like ,OOOh,ABOLISHING SLAVERY.Obama has not done anything
even remotely like that.Indeed his opponent,(as far as he is from
Lincoln),is far closer in achievement & nobility than Mr.Obama has even
attempted to be.The comparison of Obama to Lincoln,or even Obama to
McCain does not work in Mr.Obama's favor.Indeed,it shames him.
even attempted to be.The comparison of Obama to Lincoln,or
even Obama to McCain does not work in Mr.Obama's favor.Indeed,it shames
him. <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
Saturday, January 10, 2009
HITLER WINS LIST FROM THE SF ENCYCLOPEDIA
HITLER WINS SF ENCYCLOPEDIA:
LOSS OF EDEN [1940/41 IF HITLER COMES ]:DOUGLAS BROWN & CHRISTOPHER SERPELL
THEN WE SHALL HERE SINGING [1942]:STORM JAMESON
VITA-SACKVILLE WEST:GRAND CANYON [1942]
WHEN THE BELLS RANG :[1943]:ANTHONY ARMSTRONG & BRUCE GRAEME
WHEN ADOLF CAME:MARTIN HAWKIN
LOSS OF EDEN [1940/41 IF HITLER COMES ]:DOUGLAS BROWN & CHRISTOPHER SERPELL
THEN WE SHALL HERE SINGING [1942]:STORM JAMESON
VITA-SACKVILLE WEST:GRAND CANYON [1942]
WHEN THE BELLS RANG :[1943]:ANTHONY ARMSTRONG & BRUCE GRAEME
WHEN ADOLF CAME:MARTIN HAWKIN
[BOOKS IN WHICH HITLER IS STOPPED]:FRED ALLHOFF :LIGHTING IN THE NIGHT
1ST:LASZLO GASPAR:[WE ADOLF 1][1945]
SARBAN'S :THE SOUND OF HIS HORN [1952 1ST IN ENGLISH]
INFLUENCED KEITH ROBERTS:"WEIHNACHTSABEND"[1972]
& NON-ALTERNATE HISTORY NOVELS SUCH AS :
GABRIEL FIELDING:THE BIRTHDAY KING[1962]
MICHEL TOURNIER LE ROI des Aulnes trans: by BARBARA BRAY AS THE ERL KING
[1972]
DICK:THE MAN IN HIGH CASTLE[1972]
THE IRON DREAM:NORMAN SPINRAD [1972]
* = NEED TO READ
HILARY BAILEY:THE REVOLT OF FRENCHY STEINER [1964]
OTTO BASIL:WENN DAS DER FUHRER WUSSTE [1966 CUT TRANS THOMAS WEYR AS
THE TWILIGHT MEN 1968 US][NOVEL]
GREG BEAR :THOUGH ROAD NO WHITHER [1985]
DAVID BRIN :THOR MEETS CAPTAIN AMERICA[1986]
LEN DEIGHTON :SS-GB [1978]
DAVID DVORKIN:BUDSPY [1987]
GORDON ELKUND:"RED SKINS"[1981]
GARY GYGAX: & TERRY STAFFORD:VICTORIUS GR ARMS :AN ALTERNATE MILITARY
HISTORY OF WW3 [1973]
JAMES P.HOGAN:PROTEUS OPERATION[1985]
TREVOR HOYLE:Q :THROUGH THE EYE OF TIME [1977]
IT HAPPENED HERE [ADD TO DVD] [1966]
C.M.KORNBLUTH:2 DOOMS [1958]
FRITZ LEIBER:THE BIG TIME[1961]
BRAD LINAWEAVER :MOON OF ICE [1988]
NORMAN LONGMATE:[1931]:IF BRITAIN HAD WON FALLEN [1974] BASED ON THE
1972 PROGRAM :
KENNETH MACKSEY:INVASION THE GR INVASION OF ENGLAND 1940 [1980]
FREDERIC MULLALLY:HITLER HAS WON [1975]
ERIC NORDEN:THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION[1973]
ANDRE NORTON:THE CROSSROADS OF TIME [1956]
HITLER VICTORIOUS:[1986]:GREGORY BENFORD & MARTIN HARRY GREENBERG
PETER FLEMING:INVASION 1940[1957 VT OPERATION SEA LION 1957 US]
THERE WAS ASLO A BRIAN ALDISS ,BOOK, A "TRANSGRESSIVE BOOK"
& IN THE PRESCENCE OF MINE ENEMIES:TURTLEDOVE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
